Replies

What exactly is embellished? I admit I am assuming that the facts as expressed by the judge in the ruling are not embellished, and that could be a mistake, but I don’t have access to the court testimony. Some of it can be seen in the video though, so that parts about how long it was and the fact he did not have his weapon drawn I think are not embellished.

To me, it seems the case hinges on whether you believe the officer planted the gun. The evidence presented for that is that the gun have the officer’s prints, but not any other prints.

However, there is an explanation for the officer’s prints, as the gun was unloaded. I realize that if I was planting a gun, I’d then pick it up and unload it to give a reason for my prints. But it does mean that the prints do not prove anything, they merely “don’t prove” the officer didn’t touch it (and the officer could have used a glove to prevent the fingerprints, or wiped it, if there were no prints).

There apparently is no evidence of purchase of the gun by the victim, which again means we can’t prove it is the victim’s gun, but that doesn’t prove it can’t be, as a criminal drug dealer could easily get a gun without paperwork.

Further, the fact that there were no other prints could simply indicate the victim kept the gun clean. Not an obviously likely thing, but when you are looking for reasonable doubt, well within possibility.

If the officer intended to kill the perp, a more likely scenerio would have him running up to the car with his weapon drawn, and almost immediately firing, claiming that the perp was moving for a weapon. The 15-second delay guaranteed the victim a way out, simply by obeying the command shouted (unless the medical examiner is falsifying, it is clear from that evidence the perp was not sitting forward with his hands on the wheel when he was shot).